The point is that if you receive one of these tickets, it often costs you more to fight it, even if you were not speeding, than it does to just pay it and go on with your life, especially if you are not a resident of the town. This is always true, but when the municipality must pay someone to actually stop a motorist and write the ticket it costs the municipality enough that writing bogus speeding tickets is not profitable.
I don't know if you remember incorrectly, or if your history teacher was an uninformed idiot. However, Daylight Savings Time had NOTHING to do with farming. DST was developed on the theory that it would reduce electric usage and thus reduce demand for coal. DST was introduced precisely because we were no longer strictly an Agrarian society.
I will agree that I slightly overstated my subject line, but that was because every other way I could think of phrasing it failed to truly carry the point. Part of the reason I called it a lie is because I believe that the person who wrote the original story was attempting to make it seem as if the Tesla story was a giant success that more than offset the corrupt failures of these programs. I believe that Tesla is a success (although I would not argue with those who disagree since there is still time before that is proven and it may still fail before then), but it does not offset the failures of these programs.
Of course the problem with your argument is that Daylight Savings Time was not first implemented until AFTER the advent of electric lighting. It was actually first implemented to reduce the amount of electricity (and the coal used to generate electricity) during WWI.
That being said, I would be in favor of abolishing Daylight Savings Time. It is not going to happen, but I would support the idea.
The headline says that Tesla Motors is "to pay off the government loan 5 years early." That implies that they will be writing the final check in just a matter of days or weeks, when in fact, they do not even have the money on hand yet.
Four years from now is not "soon". The fact that other promising companies went from "doing great" to "what happened to them?" in less time than that suggests as much.
No, it is a statement of fact. OK, if the 5 years ended next month or even in the next three months, I would accept that. However, stating that they will pay it off four years from now as if it is a "done deal" is a lie, because there is a lot of things that can change over the next four years.
and ti would require exactly NO change for the users.
You are saying that paying a tax is no change from not paying a tax? I would say that that is a pretty significant change.
I would also say that a lot of what currently gets communicated as email would get communicated in some other manner, probably a less efficient manner.
Tesla has not paid off their loan five years early. All they have done is announce that they INTEND to pay off their loan five years early, four years from now. So, before we jump up and down and talk about how this vindicates the loan program, let's wait and see if it actually happens. That does not mean that this is not good news, but only time will tell if it actually works out.
Yes, but why is the game partly calculated server-side? The answer is DRM. They did not make the game server dependent because any part of the game play inherently required servers to calculate some aspect of gameplay, they made the game with some of the calculations done server side so as to make it harder (if not impossible) to pirate. So, calling it "always on DRM" is valid short-hand.
That depends on two things. First, is there any federal law stating that the agency in question does not need a warrant? If the answer is "No", then there is no basis for saying that federal law is supreme over state law. Second, and this only comes into play if the answer to the first question "No" (unless a court can be convinced to take it up as a Constitutional issue involving "Powers reserved to the states"), is the specific wording of the Texas statute. If the Texas statute enjoins law enforcement than it would not apply to federal authorities. On the other hand, if the statute enjoins businesses to not yield that information unless presented with a warrant, it could possibly apply (and would need a court interpretation of the specific wording).
That would depend on whether or not the federal authorities are asking for information from a business with offices in the state of Texas. Depending on how this law is written, it is possible that a business with offices in Texas which provided information to federal law enforcement agencies that did not have a warrant for that information could be found liable for violation of this law. It is also possible that individuals with such a company could be found criminally liable (although I doubt the law is written that way). Of course the question then becomes whether or not the courts would allow the state of Texas to apply penalties in that case. It is also possible that federal courts might choose to rule evidence acquired by federal agencies without a warrant inadmissible in light of this law (which by its existence could be construed to create a presumption of privacy).
Patent law is federal, not state. The state of Texas has no jurisdiction over patents. The "Eastern District" of which you speak is a federal district court populated by judges appointed by the President (whoever was President when they were appointed). I will repeat, Texas law has no impact whatsoever on decisions coming out of the Eastern District of Texas court.
Perhaps if you gave a little thought you would realize that what he meant was that North Koreans (especially the leadership) are trained to hate those who are not Korean? That would make it racial hatred, even though it is not directed at a specific race but against those who are not members of a specific ethnic group.
Yes, but a U.S. citizen does not risk being deported and if they believe that all companies are screwing them they can attempt to start their own business. An H1B visa holder must find a job with a company that can sponsor their visa in order to stay in the country and they must do so within a time frame that is well-known to all such potential employers. If you are a U.S. citizen it is unlikely that your potential employer knows how much longer you can afford to be unemployed and thus has less negotiating leverage than they do with someone with an H1B visa.
You are the first person I have seen who has suggested that that experiment/development means that dogs are descended from foxes. The explanation I have seen is that the experiment shows how the process that turned wolves into dogs worked by doing something similar to foxes. Of course the fact that dogs can readily interbreed with wolves and no one has been able to demonstrate a dog/fox hybrid seems to pretty much eliminate the theory which you have proposed.
I like both cats and dogs and am familiar with both. However, dogs more rapidly learn to repeat behaviors that get them results which they like (and to avoid behaviors which have results that they dislike). Of course, the fact that dogs are pack animals while cats are more solitary means two things for humans training the animals. The first is that dogs place greater value on "affection rewards" than cats do. The second (and somewhat related) is that since humans are also pack animals they have a better understanding of what constitutes positive/negative reinforcement for a dog than for a cat.
While the OP may have overstated his point, it is a lot more work to integrate a falcon into human hunting than it is to integrate a wolf that was raised from a cub by humans. When a human society hunts for its primary source of meat, it tends to use very similar tactics to those used by wolf packs making it easy to integrate a wolf into the hunt.
Wolves, dogs and coyotes are mutually inter-fertile. I have seen several studies comparing the DNA of dogs to wolves and demonstrating a close connection between the two species. I have not seen any studies comparing the DNA of coyotes to wolves or dogs (they may exist, but I have not seen them). However, what we know about the interbreeding between the three species suggests that coyotes are a separate derivative from wolves (coyote/wolf hybrids remain fertile over many generations of interbreeding while coyote/dog hybrids become less fertile over successive generation of interbreeding, wolf/dog hybrids also remain fertile over many generations of interbreeding).
If Congress has never passed a law which grants the FCC the authority to regulate whether or not a cell-phone provider can ban users from unlocking cell-phones, than the FCC has no authority to intervene. It very well may be that the FCC would need to go to Congress to request such authority. Of course in that case one would hope that Congress would consult the Constitution to see whether or not they had the authority to grant the FCC such authority (I also know that Congress would not do so). I am not commenting either way on whether or not the FCC or Congress has such authority.
Just because world population is still growing, does not mean that it is growing as fast as in the past. Even the most pessimistic estimations say that world population will stabilize (and perhaps begin to fall) somewhere between 9 and 11 billion people. There are several demographics which have shown sharp declines in birth rates over the last several years. These are demographics that up until that point had been expected to be among the last to show birth rate declines (for example, Muslims).
All evidence of human population dynamics suggests that human population on earth is about to peak and begin to decline. Not only that it does not appear that this will happen as a result of resource exhaustion, but rather as a result of some natural population dynamic. Just about every (if not every) demographic group on the planet is showing decreased levels of birth per person (actually the statistics are actually number of births per woman).
Really? Has the Senate passed something? I would not disagree that there is only one party that is willing to negotiate in good faith, but I am not sure that I agree that the Republicans are willing to. However, they have at least done the first step in such negotiations by presenting a proposal as a starting point for negotiations. Neither the President nor the Senate has produced a proposal as a starting point for negotiations (while the President has produced a proposal, it is so vague in so many places as to not qualify as a starting point for negotiation). There is no point in even considering a bill from Democrats in the House as there is no reason to believe that the Senate would pass them or that the President would sign them.
Until the Democrats in the Senate pass a bill and/or the President presents a proposal that contains specifics, there is no way to know if the Republicans would be willing to negotiate in good faith. We know that Obama is not willing to negotiate in good faith because he is going around and claiming that the sequester, which originated in the White House, was the idea of the House Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that if you receive one of these tickets, it often costs you more to fight it, even if you were not speeding, than it does to just pay it and go on with your life, especially if you are not a resident of the town. This is always true, but when the municipality must pay someone to actually stop a motorist and write the ticket it costs the municipality enough that writing bogus speeding tickets is not profitable.
Yes, but the more accurate "fascist" has too many negative connotations to be acceptable.
I don't know if you remember incorrectly, or if your history teacher was an uninformed idiot. However, Daylight Savings Time had NOTHING to do with farming. DST was developed on the theory that it would reduce electric usage and thus reduce demand for coal. DST was introduced precisely because we were no longer strictly an Agrarian society.
I will agree that I slightly overstated my subject line, but that was because every other way I could think of phrasing it failed to truly carry the point. Part of the reason I called it a lie is because I believe that the person who wrote the original story was attempting to make it seem as if the Tesla story was a giant success that more than offset the corrupt failures of these programs. I believe that Tesla is a success (although I would not argue with those who disagree since there is still time before that is proven and it may still fail before then), but it does not offset the failures of these programs.
Of course the problem with your argument is that Daylight Savings Time was not first implemented until AFTER the advent of electric lighting. It was actually first implemented to reduce the amount of electricity (and the coal used to generate electricity) during WWI.
That being said, I would be in favor of abolishing Daylight Savings Time. It is not going to happen, but I would support the idea.
The headline says that Tesla Motors is "to pay off the government loan 5 years early." That implies that they will be writing the final check in just a matter of days or weeks, when in fact, they do not even have the money on hand yet.
Four years from now is not "soon". The fact that other promising companies went from "doing great" to "what happened to them?" in less time than that suggests as much.
No, it is a statement of fact. OK, if the 5 years ended next month or even in the next three months, I would accept that. However, stating that they will pay it off four years from now as if it is a "done deal" is a lie, because there is a lot of things that can change over the next four years.
and ti would require exactly NO change for the users.
You are saying that paying a tax is no change from not paying a tax? I would say that that is a pretty significant change.
I would also say that a lot of what currently gets communicated as email would get communicated in some other manner, probably a less efficient manner.
Tesla has not paid off their loan five years early. All they have done is announce that they INTEND to pay off their loan five years early, four years from now. So, before we jump up and down and talk about how this vindicates the loan program, let's wait and see if it actually happens. That does not mean that this is not good news, but only time will tell if it actually works out.
Yes, but why is the game partly calculated server-side? The answer is DRM. They did not make the game server dependent because any part of the game play inherently required servers to calculate some aspect of gameplay, they made the game with some of the calculations done server side so as to make it harder (if not impossible) to pirate. So, calling it "always on DRM" is valid short-hand.
That depends on two things. First, is there any federal law stating that the agency in question does not need a warrant? If the answer is "No", then there is no basis for saying that federal law is supreme over state law. Second, and this only comes into play if the answer to the first question "No" (unless a court can be convinced to take it up as a Constitutional issue involving "Powers reserved to the states"), is the specific wording of the Texas statute. If the Texas statute enjoins law enforcement than it would not apply to federal authorities. On the other hand, if the statute enjoins businesses to not yield that information unless presented with a warrant, it could possibly apply (and would need a court interpretation of the specific wording).
That would depend on whether or not the federal authorities are asking for information from a business with offices in the state of Texas. Depending on how this law is written, it is possible that a business with offices in Texas which provided information to federal law enforcement agencies that did not have a warrant for that information could be found liable for violation of this law. It is also possible that individuals with such a company could be found criminally liable (although I doubt the law is written that way). Of course the question then becomes whether or not the courts would allow the state of Texas to apply penalties in that case. It is also possible that federal courts might choose to rule evidence acquired by federal agencies without a warrant inadmissible in light of this law (which by its existence could be construed to create a presumption of privacy).
Patent law is federal, not state. The state of Texas has no jurisdiction over patents. The "Eastern District" of which you speak is a federal district court populated by judges appointed by the President (whoever was President when they were appointed). I will repeat, Texas law has no impact whatsoever on decisions coming out of the Eastern District of Texas court.
Perhaps if you gave a little thought you would realize that what he meant was that North Koreans (especially the leadership) are trained to hate those who are not Korean? That would make it racial hatred, even though it is not directed at a specific race but against those who are not members of a specific ethnic group.
Yes, but a U.S. citizen does not risk being deported and if they believe that all companies are screwing them they can attempt to start their own business. An H1B visa holder must find a job with a company that can sponsor their visa in order to stay in the country and they must do so within a time frame that is well-known to all such potential employers. If you are a U.S. citizen it is unlikely that your potential employer knows how much longer you can afford to be unemployed and thus has less negotiating leverage than they do with someone with an H1B visa.
You are the first person I have seen who has suggested that that experiment/development means that dogs are descended from foxes. The explanation I have seen is that the experiment shows how the process that turned wolves into dogs worked by doing something similar to foxes. Of course the fact that dogs can readily interbreed with wolves and no one has been able to demonstrate a dog/fox hybrid seems to pretty much eliminate the theory which you have proposed.
I like both cats and dogs and am familiar with both. However, dogs more rapidly learn to repeat behaviors that get them results which they like (and to avoid behaviors which have results that they dislike). Of course, the fact that dogs are pack animals while cats are more solitary means two things for humans training the animals. The first is that dogs place greater value on "affection rewards" than cats do. The second (and somewhat related) is that since humans are also pack animals they have a better understanding of what constitutes positive/negative reinforcement for a dog than for a cat.
While the OP may have overstated his point, it is a lot more work to integrate a falcon into human hunting than it is to integrate a wolf that was raised from a cub by humans. When a human society hunts for its primary source of meat, it tends to use very similar tactics to those used by wolf packs making it easy to integrate a wolf into the hunt.
Wolves, dogs and coyotes are mutually inter-fertile. I have seen several studies comparing the DNA of dogs to wolves and demonstrating a close connection between the two species. I have not seen any studies comparing the DNA of coyotes to wolves or dogs (they may exist, but I have not seen them). However, what we know about the interbreeding between the three species suggests that coyotes are a separate derivative from wolves (coyote/wolf hybrids remain fertile over many generations of interbreeding while coyote/dog hybrids become less fertile over successive generation of interbreeding, wolf/dog hybrids also remain fertile over many generations of interbreeding).
If Congress has never passed a law which grants the FCC the authority to regulate whether or not a cell-phone provider can ban users from unlocking cell-phones, than the FCC has no authority to intervene. It very well may be that the FCC would need to go to Congress to request such authority. Of course in that case one would hope that Congress would consult the Constitution to see whether or not they had the authority to grant the FCC such authority (I also know that Congress would not do so). I am not commenting either way on whether or not the FCC or Congress has such authority.
Well, yes, but in order to do that, the Senate has to pass something.
Just because world population is still growing, does not mean that it is growing as fast as in the past. Even the most pessimistic estimations say that world population will stabilize (and perhaps begin to fall) somewhere between 9 and 11 billion people. There are several demographics which have shown sharp declines in birth rates over the last several years. These are demographics that up until that point had been expected to be among the last to show birth rate declines (for example, Muslims).
All evidence of human population dynamics suggests that human population on earth is about to peak and begin to decline. Not only that it does not appear that this will happen as a result of resource exhaustion, but rather as a result of some natural population dynamic. Just about every (if not every) demographic group on the planet is showing decreased levels of birth per person (actually the statistics are actually number of births per woman).
Really? Has the Senate passed something? I would not disagree that there is only one party that is willing to negotiate in good faith, but I am not sure that I agree that the Republicans are willing to. However, they have at least done the first step in such negotiations by presenting a proposal as a starting point for negotiations. Neither the President nor the Senate has produced a proposal as a starting point for negotiations (while the President has produced a proposal, it is so vague in so many places as to not qualify as a starting point for negotiation). There is no point in even considering a bill from Democrats in the House as there is no reason to believe that the Senate would pass them or that the President would sign them.
Until the Democrats in the Senate pass a bill and/or the President presents a proposal that contains specifics, there is no way to know if the Republicans would be willing to negotiate in good faith. We know that Obama is not willing to negotiate in good faith because he is going around and claiming that the sequester, which originated in the White House, was the idea of the House Republicans.